Notes on draft-fluhrer-qr-ikev2-04, mostly nits: pp. 1 "...pose a serious challenge to cryptography algorithms [deployed?] widely today."
pp. 2 "when might one be implemented" -> "when one might be implemented" pp. 3 The Changes section wording confuses me. Does that mean, relative to the last draft? Or does it mean those were the change in -03? pp. 4 "...then it must check if has a..." -> "...if it has a..." pp. 8 "Algorithm=urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:keyprov:pskc:pin" RE: rfc6030, any chance we can not refer to an RFC with XML in it? I strongly object to XML. Does IKEv2 reference any XML? (sticks fingers in ears...) pp. 9 RE: rfc6023 text I would prefer text here that suggests exactly how to achieve post-quantum ID confidentiality. This is vague and that means people will implement it all over the map. I also don't think Child SAs should ever have been made mandatory, so refering to rfc6023 is fine. Overall, I think this document should advance. This is nice and simple, more or less. Derrell _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
